70's NBA

[tlance]

The Bulls and Lakers of those years were the teams the media focused itself on, but make no mistake - Those teams absolutely worked for everything they achieved. It's not like today where LeBron or Curry take the elite's best shot for a few games a season and face mediocre teams the other 70+ games while going through the motions.

Jordan and others from that era more often that not brought out the best in their teammates as well as their competition. There was no "superteams" in the 90's, just "good" teams taking their best shots night in and night out taking their best shots at the Bulls. Jordan had his work cut out for him.

But, I do appreciate that you are expressing you opinion in a civil manner. Debates are much more fun this way, whether or not we agree.

 

[Shaqdaddy11]

Obviously I'm too much of a burden to certain people on this board that I'm going to stay away for awhile.

 

[HurricaneDij39]

The young Bucks of 1977-78...Notice that they had only one player in their rotation over the age of 25 (and that was John Gianelli, who was 27), and were headed by Don Nelson, who himself was only two years removed from his playing days...

1977-78 Milwaukee Bucks Roster and Stats | Basketball-Reference.com

 

[HurricaneDij39]

1978-79 San Diego Clippers Roster and Stats | Basketball-Reference.com
http://www.basketball-reference.com/teams/SDC/1979.html
The original San Diego Clippers of 1979, led by World B. Free and ironman Randy Smith, and coached by Gene Shue.

 

[HurricaneDij39]

The Lakers always had one or two rivals in the West (Blazers, Spurs, Kings) who were on their level or close to it, but the NBA Finals were just about a forgone conclusion during the Shaq/Kobe run. AI's 6ers might have been the worst Finals team I have ever seen.

The Lakers had the go-to-guys to get them over the top in close games, but if you actually combine the totals of all six of those NBA Finals games in 2000 you'd see that we had actually outscored the Lakers over the duration of that series, so the whole notion that the Pacers couldn't compete with the Lakers is false.

And also keep in mind that we traded away Antonio Davis the summer before...It's not crazy to think that if we had him to use up six more fouls on Shaq that we might have actually won the series.

 

[Shaqdaddy11]

The Lakers had the go-to-guys to get them over the top in close games, but if you actually combine the totals of all six of those NBA Finals games in 2000 you'd see that we had actually outscored the Lakers over the duration of that series, so the whole notion that the Pacers couldn't compete with the Lakers is false.

And also keep in mind that we traded away Antonio Davis the summer before...It's not crazy to think that if we had him to use up six more fouls on Shaq that we might have actually won the series.

No

 

[HurricaneDij39]

This was the last time we played the Lakers at the Forum...I even remember watching it...

Indiana Pacers at Los Angeles Lakers Box Score, February 14, 1999 | Basketball-Reference.com

 

[trojanfan12]

This was the last time we played the Lakers at the Forum...I even remember watching it...

Indiana Pacers at Los Angeles Lakers Box Score, February 14, 1999 | Basketball-Reference.com

I miss "The Fabulous Forum" as the late, great Chick Hearn called it. What a great place to watch a basketball game.

 

[Shaqdaddy11]

The Lakers had the go-to-guys to get them over the top in close games, but if you actually combine the totals of all six of those NBA Finals games in 2000 you'd see that we had actually outscored the Lakers over the duration of that series, so the whole notion that the Pacers couldn't compete with the Lakers is false.

And also keep in mind that we traded away Antonio Davis the summer before...It's not crazy to think that if we had him to use up six more fouls on Shaq that we might have actually won the series.

You're talking about beating a team with a Shaq that was just about to hit his prime. No way would the Pacers have won the series with Rik Smits guarding him.

 

[HurricaneDij39]

You're talking about beating a team with a Shaq that was just about to hit his prime. No way would the Pacers have won the series with Rik Smits guarding him.

Smits would have been relieved of his duties more often had both Davises been around...Donnie Walsh may have overmanaged the team in the wake of a 1999 Eastern Conference Finals upset, as he traded Antonio in attempt to get younger. As a result, a 40-year-old Sam Perkins was often matched up against Shaq in those finals. Kind of counterproductive...

Not saying we would have won, but we probably would have contained those first two games a little bit better when Shaq absolutely dominated.

 

[Shaqdaddy11]

Smits would have been relieved of his duties more often had both Davises been around...Donnie Walsh may have overmanaged the team in the wake of a 1999 Eastern Conference Finals upset, as he traded Antonio in attempt to get younger. As a result, a 40-year-old Sam Perkins was often matched up against Shaq in those finals. Kind of counterproductive...

It is what it is. The threepeat Lakers were almost unstoppable, and even though I do kinda like the Pacers, they were unfortunate enough to have to face the start of that dynasty. Shaq was destroying pretty much every player he was matched up against.

 

[trojanfan12]

Smits would have been relieved of his duties more often had both Davises been around...Donnie Walsh may have overmanaged the team in the wake of a 1999 Eastern Conference Finals upset, as he traded Antonio in attempt to get younger. As a result, a 40-year-old Sam Perkins was often matched up against Shaq in those finals. Kind of counterproductive...

Not saying we would have won, but we probably would have contained those first two games a little bit better when Shaq absolutely dominated.

I think it definitely goes 7 games and they are 7 very close games.

Most of the time, in a 7 game series, the more talented team wins. The Lakers were the more talented of the 2 teams. But the Pacers were experienced and had Reggie, that would have helped them tremendously.

I think the Lakers would have won, but the series would have been very close and the Pacers winning wouldn't be out of the question. Especially if Reggie went Reggie in 2 or 3 of the games.

 

[llemon]

You're talking about beating a team with a Shaq that was just about to hit his prime. No way would the Pacers have won the series with Rik Smits guarding him.

Smits shouldn't have played in the first half of any games in that series.